To Server or not to Server!

[jmhcs]

I am working on a small peer-to-peer network (4 users) that is running a product delivery application. The application is running on one of the workstations that also acts as a server(WXP Pro). The software company made a few significant modifications. After the modifications, no more than two stations can run this application at the same time.

The solution to this problem as suggested by the software was to add a server and use Windows 2003 Server. This is a fairly pricey fix but may be necessary.

My question is: Is it likely the network traffic cannot handle the application changes or is it the computer that acts as a workstation/server. If it is the computer, what is the probablility that simply adding a significant amount of memory will solve the problem. I would prefer not to add the server, etc.

:( :(

[rraehal]

It would be my opinion that the network traffic should not be a problem. 4 users is not a lot of use (depending on the software). We have 90 users and no problems on a single network and have 2 remote office accessing some heavy duty applications (oracle) from our server. ABout 120 systems at once.

It could be a memory issue. If you have some spare RAM you could try it to see if it solves your problem.

It could also be the workstation/server is not at minimum specs with the software changes.

Are you using a HUB or a switch? Maybe the new changes have generated enough traffic to cause colliosions. A switch coul dhelp if this is the case.

[Sterling_Aug]

If the software vendor says to upgrade to a server, then what makes you think any one of us could offer a better solution?

They know their software, we don't.

[jmhcs]

rraehal - Thanks your your insight. This is pretty much how I am thinking but sometimes a little support is appreciated. This doesn't mean it is correct, just a viable alternative. I believe I will throw more memory at it first to see what happens. We use switches, not hubs, so my thought was network traffic should not be a problem. If this does not work, a server it will be.

Sterling_Aug - In my experience (since 1961 but mostly on mainframes), most software providers like to solve their potential problem issues by throwing more hardware at it. It just doesn't make sense to me than some additional modifications should have required a server, especially since they did not advise the user until after the fact. Then it was, by the way, since you are having problems,we need you to spend a bit more money to accomodate our software. Although this may be typical, it doesn't seem proper. Normally I would migrate away from a company that acts like this but fuctionally, the software works well and all things considered I do like the provider. A little more communication would have saved a lot of problems.

I am somewhat weak in networking so a little advice/reinforcement helps me with making the correct decision.
:t:t

[gtaylor]

May I make a suggestion if it comes to a server? Go for MS SBS 2003 standard. It's cheaper than 2003 Server standard, and you get so much more for your money.

IMO though, network traffic isn't going to be an issue even if it's intensive. As long as you are connecting in at 100mbps, it'll very comfortably handle 4 workstations no matter what you're running really. The only thing I can think of as to why you would need a server though is if they have programmed in limitations, not in terms of speed or functionality.

[jmhcs]

Thanks for the advice. I will pursue it. Your comments on needing a server are right along my thoughts. I am installing more memory first, and if that doesn't work, then the server. I know the application and the company. There simply is not that much traffic.:t :t

[gtaylor]

I still reckon it's something they have done in terms of licensing with their application. Bandwidth won't be a problem at all at even 10mbps on a network that size, it might run slower, but it will run, and it wouldn't just limit you to 2 concurrent users. I reckon they're trying to pass the buck.